Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libzia/libzia.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libzia/libzia-4.18-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Platform abstraction layer for the tucnak package. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad This is prereq for the tucnak package.
I am ready for review swap.
This review is still needed for the bug 1655198.
This is an informal preliminary review: > BuildRequires: gcc, make, automake, libtool > BuildRequires: glib2-devel, gtk2-devel, SDL-devel, libpng-devel, libftdi-devel Please list one require per line, it's really more readable > Patch0: libzia-4.18-soname-fix.patch Please document this patch, and if possible talk to upstream to use correct soname Devel package should require main package: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > %setup -q > %patch0 -p1 -b .soname-fix You could use %autosetup -p1 > %ldconfig_scriptlets I think it's not needed in all supported Fedora releases > %files > ... > %{_libdir}/libzia-%{version}.so.* According to [0], it's better to glob shared libraries this way: %{_libdir}/libzia-%{version}.so.0* [0]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
(In reply to Guido Aulisi from comment #3) > This is an informal preliminary review: > Thanks. > > > BuildRequires: gcc, make, automake, libtool > > BuildRequires: glib2-devel, gtk2-devel, SDL-devel, libpng-devel, libftdi-devel > Please list one require per line, it's really more readable > NP, fixed. > > Patch0: libzia-4.18-soname-fix.patch > Please document this patch, and if possible talk to upstream to use correct > soname > Comment added: # This is to fulfill Fedora requirement - it marks the interface with # version number 0. Upstream uses --release versioning in libtool. # They do not support linking between different versions of tucnak and # libzia, i.e. tucnak-4.18 needs to be linked to libzia-4.18. > Devel package should require main package: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > Fixed. > > %setup -q > > %patch0 -p1 -b .soname-fix > You could use > %autosetup -p1 > I know, but I prefer this form - it's better when e.g. rebasing multiple patches. > > %ldconfig_scriptlets > I think it's not needed in all supported Fedora releases > I think you are right - no EPEL-7 intended at the moment - dropped. > > %files > > ... > > %{_libdir}/libzia-%{version}.so.* > According to [0], it's better to glob shared libraries this way: > %{_libdir}/libzia-%{version}.so.0* > Fixed. New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libzia/libzia.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libzia/libzia-4.18-2.fc30.src.rpm
- There are obsolete m4 macros in the package, please patch them out and notify upstream: AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: libzia-4.18/configure.ac:2 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libzia-4.18/configure.ac:14 =========================================================================== diff -up libzia-4.18/configure.ac.orig libzia-4.18/configure.ac --- libzia-4.18/configure.ac.orig 2019-09-04 08:18:30.000000000 +0200 +++ libzia-4.18/configure.ac 2020-01-08 01:22:07.039900721 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ AC_INIT(libzia, 4.18) -AM_CONFIG_HEADER(config.h) +AC_CONFIG_HEADERS(config.h) AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR(src/eprintf.c) AC_CANONICAL_TARGET AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE @@ -11,8 +11,7 @@ fi if test -f "/etc/SuSE-release"; then echo "TIP: If following test fails, try to run: yast -i gcc" fi -AC_PROG_LIBTOOL -#LT_INIT([dlopen]) +LT_INIT([dlopen]) AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4]) dnl Determine default prefix =========================================================================== - Patch this obsolete FSF address and notify upstream: libzia-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libzia/regex_.h Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GPL (v2)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License (v2)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* Public domain". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libzia/review-libzia/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libzia-4.18-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm libzia-devel-4.18-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm libzia-debuginfo-4.18-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm libzia-debugsource-4.18-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm libzia-4.18-2.fc32.src.rpm libzia.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tucnak -> tuck libzia.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tucnak -> tuck libzia-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libzia-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libzia/regex_.h libzia-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zia-config libzia.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tucnak -> tuck libzia.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tucnak -> tuck libzia.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libzia/* libzia.src:52: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libzia 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
You can add --disable-static to %configure .a are not built any more, but .la are still built.
New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libzia/libzia.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libzia/libzia-4.18-3.fc30.src.rpm
LGTM, package approved.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8) > LGTM, package approved. Thanks.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/21321 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/21322 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/21323
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libzia
libzia-4.18-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-62d03cbb1a
libzia-4.18-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-49de00ff18
libzia-4.18-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libzia-4.18-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.